Which type of pavé looks better for this setting?

[Lykame]

Hey guys,

I am in the process of choosing a setting, which has been a very long process for me. I have looked at thousands of settings over the years and none has ever been completely perfect for me. So I'm going custom.

Essentially I actually just want a very simple six prong setting with pavé down the shank, and I have designed with the jeweller I'm working with a style of setting that is PERFECT to me. Like seriously I have actual hearts coming out of my eyes.



However, there's two versions of it!!! I have to choose one!

I think I know my preference - probably - but would be grateful for any opinion, because a computer generated picture is very different from the reality of a physical ring.

Bear in mind these are the initial designs to get just the overall shape etc correct, rather than the polished down version with less metal.

Both have 1.8 mm diamonds and 2 mm shanks.

What do you think? Which would you choose? And if you fancy telling me - why?

Option One:



An example of the type of prong setting would be this. Obviously it wouldn't be wavy/multiple bands etc, but it would look like that style of prong.

Option Two:


@JrJ very kindly showed me an example of this setting - hopefully she doesn't mind if I post a picture of it here. I am happy that in the computer images the prongs are very close to the edge, as it's important to me that the diamonds cover most of the top down view.



I'm going for platinum, however.

What do you guys think???

Thanks!
Lydia.

 

[Matthews1127]

I’m leaning to #2. It’s more aesthetically pleasing to my eye, and makes your center stone look larger.

 

[FL_Sol]

I, of course, like the second one.
Here is what I think, these rules are not set in stone of course:
I think the first one looks more modern.
I think the second one is a bit more feminine and fancy but not as much as an engraved and pave band.
I love the antique look of rings but am not super feminine with my clothes and felt as though I would look ridiculous with an engraved and heavily detailed ring. I literally wear jeans, tanks and flip flops every chance I get, so the fishtail pave was just in the middle of the modern and antique look. It had the Vs to give it a little more detail and take away from the modern look but not look too fancy.
I hope that makes sense.

 

[FL_Sol]

One more thing. In my picture you posted you can see how the Vs pick up and reflect the light. That should be something you take into consideration, too. I personally LOVE it, it gives it extra twinkle.

 

[Swirl68]

The side shot of #1 gives you such a lovely view of all their little pavilions. I just LOVE that! However, I’m looking at it in magnified view and at eye level. I wonder in actual size, and on your hand, if will appear as awesome as it does on the screen?

 

[sledge]

I like the pave style of #2 better. However, to me it also appears there are some very slight tapers going on. Maybe just optical illusions?

FWIW, I think a taper from and outside fat edge to skinny edge near diamond looks best as it makes your stone look bigger.

I exaggerated the tapers but see below:

Option I like:


Inverse taper?

 

[Lykame]

I’m leaning to #2. It’s more aesthetically pleasing to my eye, and makes your center stone look larger.

Thank you!!!

 

[Lykame]

I, of course, like the second one.
Here is what I think, these rules are not set in stone of course:
I think the first one looks more modern.
I think the second one is a bit more feminine and fancy but not as much as an engraved and pave band.
I love the antique look of rings but am not super feminine with my clothes and felt as though I would look ridiculous with an engraved and heavily detailed ring. I literally wear jeans, tanks and flip flops every chance I get, so the fishtail pave was just in the middle of the modern and antique look. It had the Vs to give it a little more detail and take away from the modern look but not look too fancy.
I hope that makes sense.

One more thing. In my picture you posted you can see how the Vs pick up and reflect the light. That should be something you take into consideration, too. I personally LOVE it, it gives it extra twinkle.

Okay I'm really grateful for your response, thank you very very much.

Hehe I mean obviously you will be biased hehehe but actually your insight into the setting is really helpful to me. I totally agree with you that the first one looks more modern and the second one has a bit more going on with it but in a way that's still quite sleek. I have a friend who has a heavily engraved wedding band and it's lovely and really twinkles even though it actually doesn't have any diamonds in it. It really fools my eyes into thinking there are stones there.

Thank you so much.

 

[Lykame]

The side shot of 1 gives you such a lovely view of all their little pavilions. I just LOVE that! However, I’m looking at it in magnified view and at eye level. I wonder in actual size, and on your hand, if will appear as awesome as it does on the screen?

Thanks @Swirl68! The first one is very similar to my previous ring I had, with a shared prong setting, just smooth on the side. You can see all the little girdles from the side, which I do like. You sadly can't see the pavilions like the picture would suggest, and on the example you can't see the pavilions either. That kind of setting would be really interesting wouldn't it!!! I'm not sure how that would be possible... they would have to be suspended somehow.

 

[Lykame]

I like the pave style of #2 better. However, to me it also appears there are some very slight tapers going on. Maybe just optical illusions?

FWIW, I think a taper from and outside fat edge to skinny edge near diamond looks best as it makes your stone look bigger.

I exaggerated the tapers but see below:

Option I like:


Inverse taper?

Wow haha now you mention it I can totally see that taper too!!! It's totally an optical illusion from the shadowing they've put around the central stone compared to the white they've put towards the edges, but that's so cool, I hadn't noticed it.

Hmmm a taper... the reverse taper I have never particularly been keen on, but a taper... hmm. I have seen rings where I've quite liked it. I've seen some rings as well with a 'pinch' near the attachment between head and shank, too, which I also quite like... possibly more than a taper. My only problem is that I want absolutely no element of 'cathedral' to the shank, and the band is already only 2mm, which is as thin as I think is structurally stable. In general when a band tapers it also had to be 'taller' to allow the taper to remain secure.

I do like anything that gives the illusion of a larger central stone. I hated in my previous ring that I had a shank that was slightly too wide for the central stone, and that always bothered me. Hmm. I'll have a think about it.

 

[rockysalamander]

#2. I think its more interesting from the side.

 

[Lykame]

#2. I think its more interesting from the side.

You'll be pleased to know, @rockysalamander, and everyone else who has so kindly replied to this thread, that I totally agree and number 2 is my favourite too. There's just something about it... it captivates me. I just REALLY wanted to make sure I wasn't making a hasty decision. Originally when I set out I wanted more simple pavé like option 1. And then seeing that zig-zag...

 

[diamondnewbieny]

I like #2 better, I have a ring with side stones something similar like #1, was told by a jeweler that these small stone comes off very easily with this type of setting. Luckily he showed me a few of it was lose, and I fixed it.

Also #2 is more pleasing to my eyes, the side stone seems to have a more smooth finish.

 

[natasha-cupcake]

Glad you chose #2--it's my favorite, too. I like the slightly scalloped appearance. It looks so feminine and dainty to me.

 

[FL_Sol]

Yay!
Please post pictures when it is finished-LOTS of pictures! And tag me in them!
Out of curiosity, is this Adwar that is making it? If it, may I ask who? Are they cheaper than BGD? I plan on having BGD make my replacement ring but would love a second one that is cheaper to wear more often and for travel because I proved I can’t be trusted with jewelry and don’t trust my center diamond will survive the next mishap which I am doomed to make.

 

[Lykame]

Yay!
Please post pictures when it is finished-LOTS of pictures! And tag me in them!
Out of curiosity, is this Adwar that is making it? If it, may I ask who? Are they cheaper than BGD? I plan on having BGD make my replacement ring but would love a second one that is cheaper to wear more often and for travel because I proved I can’t be trusted with jewelry and don’t trust my center diamond will survive the next mishap which I am doomed to make.

I will definitely post lots of pictures once I have it. It's going to take a while... pain pain pain.

I am having it made in England, by Durham Rose, as Durham Rose are supplying my diamond. In general, I am a strong believer in getting the diamond and the setting done by the same place, or at least getting the setting done by a place who will fully take responsibility for setting the diamond even if they didn't source it. The prices in England are generally more than in America, so sadly I will definitely be paying more for this setting than if I had sourced that setting from Brian Gavin. However, it's a no-brainer for me; I prefer a ring without the doughnut, and I also prefer having full control over every aspect of how the ring will look. So it's worth it to me to pay a bit more and get the customer service and control, etc.

I have heard on here a lot that David Klass will custom make a ring and that his prices are good - I just don't know how good/how comparable etc. I am getting a CBI diamond, so honestly if I were in America I would use HPD and their bench for this, and if I didn't have access to that I would approach David Klass next. I know he is exceptionally busy and you have to be patient with him, but the quality of his work looks excellent.

If I were going to buy a travel ring, I would go via August Vintage and get moissanite or another simulant in something white gold - that way at least I would know I was getting the best cut stone, but it wouldn't be a complete disaster if something happened to it....

 

[FL_Sol]

I will definitely post lots of pictures once I have it. It's going to take a while... pain pain pain.

I am having it made in England, by Durham Rose, as Durham Rose are supplying my diamond. In general, I am a strong believer in getting the diamond and the setting done by the same place, or at least getting the setting done by a place who will fully take responsibility for setting the diamond even if they didn't source it. The prices in England are generally more than in America, so sadly I will definitely be paying more for this setting than if I had sourced that setting from Brian Gavin. However, it's a no-brainer for me; I prefer a ring without the doughnut, and I also prefer having full control over every aspect of how the ring will look. So it's worth it to me to pay a bit more and get the customer service and control, etc.

I have heard on here a lot that David Klass will custom make a ring and that his prices are good - I just don't know how good/how comparable etc. I am getting a CBI diamond, so honestly if I were in America I would use HPD and their bench for this, and if I didn't have access to that I would approach David Klass next. I know he is exceptionally busy and you have to be patient with him, but the quality of his work looks excellent.

If I were going to buy a travel ring, I would go via August Vintage and get moissanite or another simulant in something white gold - that way at least I would know I was getting the best cut stone, but it wouldn't be a complete disaster if something happened to it....

That is exactly what I was going to have in the travel ring-an AV moissanite!
Can’t wait to see the pics!

 

[Lykame]

I like #2 better, I have a ring with side stones something similar like #1, was told by a jeweler that these small stone comes off very easily with this type of setting. Luckily he showed me a few of it was lose, and I fixed it.

Also #2 is more pleasing to my eyes, the side stone seems to have a more smooth finish.

That's really interesting about your setting and the issues you had with the stones being loose. I had a shared prong setting for years and the stones were fine - but it was also built like a brick, there was nothing small or dainty about it, haha. I can see a more dainty setting would run the risk of being more at risk. I have made it really clear that I expect to be able to put my ring through the ultrasonic and scrub it with a toothbrush without having to worry about any of the diamonds. That's another priority for me.

 

[Lykame]

Glad you chose #2--it's my favorite, too. I like the slightly scalloped appearance. It looks so feminine and dainty to me.

Thank you @natasha-cupcake! Yeah I agree, there's something a little extra to me. I've mentioned before - I had never quite realised how much time I would spend looking at the SIDE of my ring, so the side view is SO important to me now. It's part of the issue as to why I have agonised so much about making the correct choice.

Have you set your old cut yet???

 

[diamondnewbieny]

That's really interesting about your setting and the issues you had with the stones being loose. I had a shared prong setting for years and the stones were fine - but it was also built like a brick, there was nothing small or dainty about it, haha. I can see a more dainty setting would run the risk of being more at risk. I have made it really clear that I expect to be able to put my ring through the ultrasonic and scrub it with a toothbrush without having to worry about any of the diamonds. That's another priority for me.

I am wondering if the metal have anything to do with it? My ring is platinum and I dropped it on the floor a few times and see some dents on the metal. I could have knocked it on the table and damage the setting as well. But I would still choose platinum over 18/14k metal.

 

[natasha-cupcake]

Thank you @natasha-cupcake! Yeah I agree, there's something a little extra to me. I've mentioned before - I had never quite realised how much time I would spend looking at the SIDE of my ring, so the side view is SO important to me now. It's part of the issue as to why I have agonised so much about making the correct choice.

Have you set your old cut yet???

No, I have not set it yet. I'm finishing up one project and the OEC is next!

 

[Lykame]

Ok, so after approving the zig zag one, I have waxes of it! I also have waxes of the matching band but I don't really believe I can afford that now as I already went over budget.

I LOVE it. I don't even care that the head of the ring is completely impractical for putting a band next to it unless it's a plain band. I would have to have a spacer for a matching diamond band to protect the prongs.

What do you guys think? Sorry it's really very difficult to photograph. Also, I'm a J and a half, my rings will fit over my knuckles but I cannot make the wax fit over my knuckles. I daren't force it. There seems to be excess wax on the internal diameter, which is probably for casting and polishing purposes. A J and a half fits perfectly normally, although this makes me ponder going up half a size to a K... Or a J and 3/4 if that exists. But I genuinely think that would be too loose. I like a bit of spin but certainly not anything that falls off!

 

[ccuheartnurse]

It looks very pretty. Your stone is going to look huge with that delicate shank. I assume you get to keep the wax? I recently came across an old thread of a pricescoper, unsure of what colour metal she wanted, ended up spray painting the wax to get a more realistic idea of how it would look. I never thought about it but that's a great idea.

 

[Lykame]

It looks very pretty. Your stone is going to look huge with that delicate shank. I assume you get to keep the wax? I recently came across an old thread of a pricescoper, unsure of what colour metal she wanted, ended up spray painting the wax to get a more realistic idea of how it would look. I never thought about it but that's a great idea.

Thanks, yes I get to keep the wax - but I don't know what its longevity is like; I suspect it's at risk of drying out.

What a great idea about spray painting the wax! It's funny, this colour purple is my favourite colour ever, it's like a blackened purple, I love it! If you hold it up to the light it glows a violet colour, it's stunning.

It's much more delicate than I was expecting but that's a bonus to me. Because it's not a peg head, even though the shank is thin I think it will still be quite sturdy. I love that it's sort of a weird combination of sturdy and dainty. I had the option of a 2.2mm band with 2mm pavé diamonds, which I did think about, but I think proportionately this is the look I was hoping for, so I'm really pleased.

 

[Krisking]

What do you guys think? Sorry it's really very difficult to photograph. Also, I'm a J and a half, my rings will fit over my knuckles but I cannot make the wax fit over my knuckles. I daren't force it. There seems to be excess wax on the internal diameter, which is probably for casting and polishing purposes. A J and a half fits perfectly normally, although this makes me ponder going up half a size to a K... Or a J and 3/4 if that exists.

Don't. Waxes fit smaller than the real thing. Double check with DR. Excited to see the finished product!